Evaluation of the use of Working with Others - Building Trust For the Shaldon Flood Risk Project Ed Straw and Lindsey Colbourne March 2009 Lindsey Colbourne Associates Index Index ............................................................................................ 2 1 This report, the brief and approach .......................................... 5 1.1 Introduction to this report ........................................................................... 5 1.2 The approach............................................................................................. 6 2 Executive summary .................................................................. 8 2.1 The highest engagement benefit: cost ratio is not achieved by deciding whether to engage or not, but by making the right decision about how much to engage. ........ 8 2.2 Critical to a high engagement benefit: cost ratio is doing engagement well, and doing it efficiently. ........................................................................................... 10 2.3 What next? The pilot work at Shaldon raises a strategic set of issues to be resolved: ........................................................................................................ 10 3 Using the BTwC approach in Shaldon – what was done, what happened 11 3.1 Origins .................................................................................................... 11 3.2 What was done, and how the BTwC approach differed from „business as usual‟ 13 3.2.1 Timing and extent of BTwC activities .................................................... 13 3.2.2 What was different about BTwC in the overall timing and approach? ......... 14 3.2.3 Internal team and preparation ............................................................. 15 3.2.4 The BTwC principles ........................................................................... 16 3.2.5 The BTwC engagement plan ................................................................ 17 3.2.6 What was different about the principles, style and methods used in the BTwC approach? ................................................................................................... 19 3.2.7 Shaldon and Ringmore Flood Risk Liaison Group..................................... 21 3.2.8 The Shaldon and Ringmore Liaison Group: ............................................ 22 3.2.9 Interests represented on the liaison Group ............................................ 25 3.2.10 The difference in BTwC approach to working with a Liaison Group .......... 26 3.3 The result ............................................................................................... 27 3.4 Wider set of outcomes from the pilot .......................................................... 28 3.4.1 New materials and standards of practice ............................................... 28 3.4.2 How to/good practice guides ................................................................ 28 3.4.3 Materials for case studies, and a focus for debate ................................... 29 3.4.4 Staff skills and attitudes ...................................................................... 29 3.5 What is happening now? ........................................................................... 30 Evaluation of the use of BTwC for Shaldon Flood Risk Project. Lindsey Colbourne Associates for the Environment Agency. July 2009 2 4 The use of BTwC at Shaldon was both costly and significantly cost- beneficial, depending on the comparators ................................... 31 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 31 4.2 Benefit-cost comparators of five flood defence schemes ................................ 31 4.3 The additional costs of BTwC at Shaldon ..................................................... 33 4.4 Calculating benefit-cost ............................................................................. 33 4.5 Improving benefit-cost of engagement through efficiencies ........................... 36 4.6 Engagement benefit-cost as a core part of the Environment Agency‟s remit? ... 38 4.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 39 5 How to do BTwC well? ............................................................ 41 5.1 At a minimum the Environment Agency and the public would benefit if the Environment Agency were to bring consistently more engaging attitudes and style to working with the public ..................................................................................... 41 5.1.1 Attitudes ........................................................................................... 41 5.1.2 Style ................................................................................................. 44 5.1.3 Skills ................................................................................................ 46 5.2 There are key planning and preparation elements of BTwC which should consistently be built into Environment Agency procedures ..................................... 48 5.2.1 Deciding how much engagement is appropriate given the risks. ............... 48 5.2.2 Integrating plans for NEAS, engagement, ncpms, and communications. .... 51 5.2.3 Joining up across flooding issues and organisations ................................ 52 5.2.4 Use of (independent) engagement expertise .......................................... 53 5.2.5 Continuity of teams ............................................................................ 54 5.2.6 Communication requirements .............................................................. 54 5.3 Methods and techniques for engaging with communities ............................... 55 5.3.1 Light touch methods and techniques for standard practice ....................... 55 5.3.2 Methods and techniques for dealing with proactive, intrusive schemes ...... 57 6 Moving on from the Shaldon pilot: what next ........................ 59 6.1 What policy is driving the work of the Environment Agency– best value vs. public acceptability and resilience? .............................................................................. 62 6.2 How to deal with changing data and requirements such as extreme tide levels, sea level rise, priority score, compensation, policies and funding? .......................... 64 6.3 Does engagement bring welcome or unwelcome scrutiny and accountability? .. 68 6.4 How to avoid the temptation to use engagement as manipulation or „education in disguise‟? ........................................................................................................ 69 Evaluation of the use of BTwC for Shaldon Flood Risk Project. Lindsey Colbourne Associates for the Environment Agency. July 2009 3 6.5 Participation, representation and democracy. How to know when a remit to act has been secured from the community? .............................................................. 71 6.5.1 What kind of mandate is being sought from community engagement? ...... 71 6.5.2 Liaison Groups -speaking for and with the community? The role and membership of Liaison Groups ....................................................................... 74 6.5.3 Changing interests over time ............................................................... 78 7 References ............................................................................. 81 8 Appendices ............................................................................ 83 8.1 Interviewees for this report ....................................................................... 83 8.2 EIA process ............................................................................................. 84 1 3.0 EIA Screening & Scoping .................................................. 84 8.3 Type A, B, C tool ...................................................................................... 85 8.4 Withdrawal of planning application, April 2009 ............................................. 87 8.5 Resubmitting planning application, July 2009 ............................................... 89 8.6 Embedding lessons learned ....................................................................... 90 Evaluation of the use of BTwC for Shaldon Flood Risk Project. Lindsey Colbourne Associates for the Environment Agency. July 2009 4 1 This report, the brief and approach 1.1 Introduction to this report This report evaluates the use of the Building Trust with Communities – Working with Others (BTwC) approach to Flood Risk Management in Shaldon, Devon. The use of BTwC in Shaldon was designed to pilot the BTwC approach. As a pilot, significant amounts of time and money have been invested by the Environment Agency, members of the local community and other organisations in exploring the approach. This report should be of interest to people inside and outside the Environment Agency who need to have a view on whether the approach to engaging the community in Shaldon was a success, what lessons were learned and what should be done in the future. For the Environment Agency there is quite a lot in the report that could be operationalised, and should be of interest to: - Project Managers - Communications teams including Communications Business Partners and Building Trust Mentors - FCRM - ncpms - Engineering Consultants - NEAS - Board - Directors. Outside the Environment Agency we hope the report will be of interest to members of communities and for other public agencies who are interested in engaging the public